2013 (5) TMI 823

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 9-11-2012 whereby the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the lower adjudicating authority s order. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% E.O.U. Vide Bill of Entry No. 732009, dated 20-4-2007, they imported capital goods namely one complete Hydroponic Syste .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the adjudication order. Hence the appeal. 4. The contention of the appellants is that they have imported the goods for the purpose of demonstration/reverse engineering. However, the impugned goods are in the bonded warehouse and they have not been cleared for home .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted by 100% EOU. The question raised by the department is that the goods are not covered under Annexure II and as per sub-clause (3)(d)(I)(i), in the case of capital goods, such goods are not proved to the satisfaction of the said officer to have been installed or otherwise used within the unit, within a period of one year from the date of import or procurement thereof or within such extended peri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X